Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6, 709726
they are expressed as a function of sediment concentration (or void ratio) only. In Toorman (1996),
it has already been argued that this traditional
assumption cannot be valid for the effective stress.
This will be further investigated here and another
closure equation is proposed. Analysis of experimental data for cohesive sediments reveals a dependence of the permeability on the initial
conditions. This is investigated in the light of the
aggregation history.
In the literature one can nd many types of
numerical models for the prediction of sedimentation and/or consolidation. However, there is hardly
any which is applied over the total range of
concentrations (from zero to maximum compaction). This can be attributed to the problem of
solving the moving density discontinuities, such as
INTRODUCTION
A unifying theory for sedimentation and selfweight consolidation has been presented in a previous paper (Toorman, 1996). The solution of the
resulting sediment mass balance equation requires
closure relations for the suspension diffusivity, the
permeability (or the free ltration rate, redened
below) and the effective stress. Many types of
relatively simple empirical equations have been
proposed over the years (an overview is presented
by Alexis et al., 1993). They have in common that
Manuscript received 16 June 1997; revised manuscript
accepted 24 March 1999.
Discussion on this paper closes 30 June 2000; for further
details see p.ii.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
709
710
TOORMAN
the interface between the suspension and the consolidating bed. Furthermore, it is remarkable that
very few papers on the modelling of consolidation
show results of computed density proles and, even
more rarely, of a comparison with measured density proles. This clearly is the most valuable
validation of a model, as will be demonstrated
later. Most models are evaluated on their capacity
to match measured settlement curves. This can be
achieved relatively easily, even with the simplest
models. Of course, from an engineering point of
view, the latter test may be the most important, for
example, if one tries to minimize the storage
volume in dredged-material disposals. However,
there is much interest in the correct prediction of
density proles. For instance, in sediment transport
modelling one is interested in the correlation between the density of the bed and the erosion
resistance of the corresponding layer.
This paper investigates different approaches
(including their possibilities and limitations) to
numerical modelling of problems involving onedimensional sedimentation and consolidation. Special attention is given to different coordinate systems, different types of boundary conditions and
numerical stability. Results are presented of the
validation of the model with three sets of experimental data.
CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS
w0 s
DB
@z @z
@t
s w @z
@z
(1)
(2)
(3)
@z
@ 0
@t
@z
where 0 u0 is the buoyant stress, is the
total stress and u0 is the hydrostatic pressure. This
shows that (1 @ 9=@ 0 ) is the factor by which
the free ltration rate is reduced owing to particle
interactions in a consolidating network structure,
i.e. w0 @ 9=@ 0 is the rate of deceleration caused
by the soil matrix deformation.
In order to solve equation (3), closure relationships are required for the diffusivity coefcient and
for the two consolidation parameters, i.e. the effective stress and the free ltration rate (or the permeability).
Suspension diffusivity
The formulation of a closure relationship for the
suspension diffusivity coefcient D B is not
straightforward. Batchelor (1976) found theoretically that for dilute suspensions the diffusivity due
to Brownian motion increases linearly with the
concentration, according to D B D0 (1 1:45s ).
For higher concentrations, it is expected that D B
decreases again owing to hindrance by other particles.
The ratio between the diffusivity and the free
ltration rate can be estimated from experimental
data as follows. Consider a point where the net
sediment ux S is zero, e.g. at the bottom. Accord-
(5)
711
vw vs ws
1 @u
i
k
k
w @z
(6)
@ t constant
(s w )s @ t constant z
(7)
Notice that `constant ' is equivalent to `constant
material coordinate'.
The accuracy of the experimental determination
of the parameters i and ws is very low. It depends
on the accuracy of the density probe and piezometers, the number of measurement points (i.e. the
number of pressure ports in the settling column
set-up and the frequency of density prole record-
712
TOORMAN
ing, respectively) from which the slope is computed, as well as the approximation method (using
some sort of interpolation) used to compute the
slope.
The methodology described above only applies
to a saturated soil matrix in which effective stresses have developed. At lower concentrations, in the
suspension phase, one has to use the relationship
between permeability and free ltration rate, dened by equation (2). As long as the diffusivity is
negligible, ws w0 and one can apply an analytical method based on the theory of Kynch (1952) to
estimate ws as a function of the concentration (e.g.
Toorman, 1992). In the case of an initially homogeneous suspension, one nds the settling velocity
and corresponding concentration at the interface
between the sediment and water h is the interface
level as
ws
dh h
dt
t
s 0
h0
h ws (t t0 )
(8)
713
0.1
Equation (9)
(Richardson & Zaki, 1954)
0.01
Equation (11)
Equation (12)
Equation (10)
(Barnea & Mizrahi, 1973)
(Brinkman, 1947)
0.001
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1=3
wSt (1 s ) exp[5s =3(1 s )]
(10)
(12)
714
TOORMAN
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
Equation (9)
(Richardson & Zaki, 1954)
0.03
0.02
Equation (12)
Equation
(11)
(Brinkman, 1947)
0.01
Equation (10)
(Barnea & Mizrahi, 1973)
0
0
0.1
0.2
0 .3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
715
0.1
0.01
Permeability: m/s
0.001
w0
0.0001
1025
1026
1027
1028
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2.0
1.8
1.6
Height: m
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
1000
10000
100000
Time: s
716
TOORMAN
0.1
0.01
Test
a
b
c
d
e
0.001
0.0001
w0
Initial height: m
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
2.0
25
10
10
26
1027
1028
1029
e
10210
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
717
718
TOORMAN
S ws s w0 s
@ 9
w0 s 1
@ 0
w0 s (1 E) De
@s
@z
(14)
where E(s ) is the effective-stress settling-rate reduction factor, which is related to the interparticle
contact; De (s ) is the effective-stress diffusivity,
which is related to the deformation of the weak
De
@z S0
S0
(15)
This equation applies not only to the bottom, but
also to the equilibrium bed density prole, reached
at the end of primary consolidation when all the
excess pore pressures have dissipated. By rearranging the total sediment ux balance (equation (14)),
the value of E can be estimated for any point of a
density prole, provided that ws , w0 (or, equivalently, the permeability k, according to equation
(2)) and Geq are known, from
ws
1 @s 1
E(s ) 1
1
(16)
Geq (s ) @z
w0
It is a disadvantage that calibration of this equation
requires a consolidation test which is continued
until all pore pressures are dissipated, which for
some materials, such as estuarine dredged material,
can take several months. This would mean that
predictions of self-weight consolidation of such
materials could only be made on the basis of tests
that lasted as long as the eld situation. The test
duration may be reduced by accelerated consolidation in a centrifugal set-up.
On the other hand, when the parameters w0 (or
k), E and De as a function of concentration are
known, integration of the equilibrium condition
(equation (15)) allows the calculation of the equilibrium density prole (and, consequently, the nal
bed height) without solving for the transient behaviour (equation (1)), provided that the total mass
per unit area is known.
Surface densication
Creep is often dened as the densication at a
constant effective stress (e.g. Sills, 1995). The
increase of the density at the soil/water interface,
as observed in the experimental proles shown
here for both rigid particles (Fig. 6) and compressible aggregate particles (Figs 7 and 8), fulls this
condition, because the effective stress at the bed
surface is always zero. The case of rigid spherical
particles (Fig. 6) suggests that what actually happens is that the accumulation rate of depositing
719
0.35
Height: m
Time: s
0.3
10
0.25
40
0.2
70
0.15
100
0.1
130
150
170
200
0.05
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Fig. 6. Computed density proles for spherical glass beads. Dashed line,
analytical solution (Kynch's sedimentation theory); full line, niteelement solution. Initial height H 0 0:312 m; initial solids concentration 0 0:15; D 104 S; diffusivity limit Dlim 1013 @e =@z
2.0
1h
1.8
6h
1.6
Height: m
1.4
1.2
1.0
24 h
67:25 h
0.8
211 h
0.6
812 h
0.4
0.2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
720
TOORMAN
0.7
0
0:12 h
0.6
0:20 h
Height: m
0.5
0:36 h
1:45 h
2:33 h
0.4
12:06 h
0.3
104 h
0.2
334 h
0.1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
surface densication is not a pure creep phenomenon. In the case of non-cohesive particles no
creep is involved at all. A new denition of creep
is required. True creep, as observed in certain soils
after excess pore pressures have dissipated, should
be related to biochemically induced structural
changes, probably driven by non-equilibrium gradients of the corresponding properties. It is very
likely that during primary consolidation true creep
already takes place (Sills, 1995). Hence, for cohesive sediments part of the surface densication
may be attributed to creep.
NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION
w0 s
DB
@z
s w @z
@z
(17)
721
722
TOORMAN
interface location was obtained by taking the coordinate corresponding to the rst maximum in the
density gradient, starting from the top of the
column.
Boundary conditions
In theory two types of boundary conditions can
be imposed for the surface as well as for the
bottom. The rst type is a known sediment ux,
i.e. a natural or Neumann condition. This condition
is the best one to use at the bottom, where the
sediment ux is zero. However, careful consideration should be given to the physical meaning of
this condition. The settling rate traditionally is
supposed to be a decreasing function of concentration and becomes zero only at the maximum
compaction concentration. Hence, the downward
(gravitational) ux can never be zero at lower
concentrations. Nevertheless, there is no ux
through the bottom. Hence, it must be balanced
exactly by the upward diffusive ux.
At the surface, a zero sediment ux condition
allows the simulation of the formation of the interface in a natural way, again balancing the diffusive
ux. This condition should be applied when using
a xed Eulerian grid. In can also be applied when
using material coordinates. In both cases the sharp
density gradients at the sedimentwater interface
may lead to numerical problems (overshoot and
oscillation). A non-zero sediment ux should be
applied when sediment enters the domain from the
surface boundary, e.g. in the case of mud-dumping
in a conned disposal site.
The second type of boundary condition is a
known sediment concentration, i.e. an essential or
Dirichlet condition. This boundary condition is
often used for the surface in a soil-mechanical
approach in a reduced coordinate frame. The use
of a Dirichlet condition at the top avoids the
overshoot problem. However, as densication occurs at the surface, this boundary condition
should not be used. For the same reason, this
condition generally cannot be used at the bottom.
The only physically correct boundary condition is
a zero sediment ux condition at both ends.
However, if one imposes the condition that the
bottom concentration is the maximum value, then
a true discontinuity must be considered. This is
difcult to handle numerically. Lee & Sills
(1981) apply this condition in their simplied
analytical solution for consolidation on a pervious
bottom.
In the case of bottom drainage, the uid ux
through the bottom has to be imposed as well,
which can be done through the additional term
which then occurs in the mass balance equation
(equation (27) of Toorman, 1996). This case will
not be considered here.
MODEL VALIDATION
(19)
s
H 1 exp[(1 s =max )]
max
(21)
(22)
723
724
TOORMAN
0.001
0.0001
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
10210
10211
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
The prediction of sedimentation and consolidation requires the knowledge of closure relationships
for the free ltration rate (or permeability), effective stress and diffusivity. The traditional empirical
constitutive equations do not full all the physical
requirements. The lack of accurate measurement
725
Subscripts
s sediment
w water
REFERENCES
Alexis, A., Thomas, P. & Gallois, S. (1993). Consolidation of cohesive sediments, Final Report for the
MAST-1 G6M Programme. St Nazaire: Civil Engineering Department, IUT (in French).
Auzerais, F. M., Jackson, R. & Russel, W. B. (1988). The
resolution of shocks and the effect of compressible
sediments in transient settling. J. Fluid Mech. 195,
437462.
Barnea, E. & Mizrahi, J. (1973). A generalized approach
to the uid dynamics of particulate systems. Part I:
general correlation for uidization and sedimentation
in solid multiparticle systems. Chem. Engng J. 5,
171189.
Batchelor, G. K. (1976). Brownian diffusion of particles
with hydrodynamic interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 74,
No. 1, 129.
Been, K. & Sills, G. C. (1981). Self-weight consolidation
726
TOORMAN